Author Topic: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge (Read 16139 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #195 on:** July 25, 2019, 12:46:24 PM »

Here's another 44 minute video for interested forum members to peruse. I don't ask 5micro to watch it, since he's a millennial with a short attention. But, happy day, he's got Stanley to help explain for him the "science stuff."
The Apollo Moon Program was an utter hoax, perpetrated by the military industrial complex, about whom President Eisenhower warned all Americans to beware. They made billions of dollars on the project at the expense of the American taxpayer.
All other millennials, including 5micro are of course excused from viewing or thinking about this too much.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #196 on:** July 25, 2019, 03:00:51 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 23, 2019, 04:05:05 PM

▷ How could astronauts have communicated so clearly and noiselessly with ground control, when the noise level of the propulsion engine, a few feet away, directly below them, was reported to have been totally deafening?

Appropriate microphone design on the transmitting end, and a squelch circuit on the receiving end, i.e.:

• microphone designed to have a pattern of sensitivity that sensed sound only from the direction of a helmeted astronaut's mouth, and for a range that extended not much deeper into the helmet. The sensitivity pattern is typically described by the mathematical name of a shape that's defined by a trigonometric formula. A dynamic-type microphone, which was in the radio-enthusiast market no later than the mid-1960s, would've helped the voice-quality. Reducing the microphone's sensitivity to sounds outside the helmets would've muffled the sound of the engines that was deafening to humans riding the rocket stages. Getting those characteristics in a device sufficiently miniaturized for a spacesuit might've been the primary engineering challenge.

• squelch is a receiver feature that provides control of the volume-threshhold of received sound that's produced as output (i.e., via headphones or speakers). It eliminates all sounds with a lower volume than that for which it's set, but passes thro' all sounds of higher volume at their original volume. It's conventionally controlled in radio receivers by a ‘volume’-like rotating knob, and used on Earth to eliminate the distraction of noise caused by various kinds of radio interference.

The combination of an appropriate microphone designed to have insensitivity that would've muffled the deafening sound of the engines, and squelch that could then eliminate the muffled sound, would've produced the sounds of clear and noiseless voices that listeners are accustomed to hearing during U.S. spaceflights.

By the way, most of the abruptness of sounds heard is because it's radio--not telephone--communication technology, so voice-actuated switching (VOX) is an important part of the system. VOX circuits mediate all the voices potentially contending for radio transmitter channels, notably the numerous voices at Mission Control.

Stanley N · « **Reply #197 on:** July 25, 2019, 03:58:13 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 25, 2019, 12:46:24 PM

Here's another 44 minute video for interested forum members to peruse. I don't ask 5micro to watch it, since he's a millennial with a short attention. But, happy day, he's got Stanley to help explain for him the "science stuff."
The Apollo Moon Program was an utter hoax, perpetrated by the military industrial complex, about whom President Eisenhower warned all Americans to beware. They made billions of dollars on the project at the expense of the American taxpayer.
All other millennials, including 5micro are of course excused from viewing or thinking about this too much.

Ah, there it is, the stuff at 36:00 to 40:00 has been edited out of sequence making it seem one of the astronauts says the camera is up to the window when the video shortly shows it's not. These are at different times in the original video, but Sibrel edited it so that it's misrepresented. Also, the video claims the image out the window was cropped by the window being circular, but omits the part of the video where the astronauts move the camera and show the CM interior. They were looking out a rectangular window. The circular hatch window is shown clearly somewhere else. This sort of editing is dishonest.

In the end, the narrator says a lot about this supposedly revealing video without actually showing much of the video, and while hiding parts of the video that undermine the claims. The video, by the way, was the astronauts preparing and delivering a televised segment while on the way to the moon, and was not a "secret".

Here are two pages that say more. There's also an hour and a half video on youtube that is probably the super secret raw material.
http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/611-did-astronauts-fake-tv-footage-of.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

I think I've already addressed the rest of Sibrel's claims in the video, like the radiation belts and the nonsense that shadows can't go in different directions.

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 04:46:27 PM

Stanley, are you really insinuating that Virts spoke only of present capabilities?

Yes, it seems clear to me what he was talking about. He starts talking about the SLS, the next heavy-lift launch system being designed. The sentence you picked out starts "right now" (present capabilities), and immediately after he goes on about the "new system we're building". The context is the heavy-lift launch system.

And one correction, I forgot to mention earlier the Space Shuttle was also a heavy-lift launch system. But that was designed to get large payloads to LEO, not as stage in a moon mission.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #198 on:** July 26, 2019, 05:03:52 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 03:14:52 PM

Below is a 55 second portion of a video link I published earlier. I am trying to spare folks like 5micro, (and maybe [Alli]gatordic[a]x) the tedium of watching anything longer than that. From a previous remark, I conclude that 5Micro doesn’t care for videos, so I purposely publish again only this excerpt. [....] The video excerpt was made, I believe in 2015.

Yes, by all means, please include me among "doesn’t care for videos": AlligatorDicax. Debating by shovelling videos without citations into topics is at best a habit of laziness.

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 03:14:52 PM

I assume that [Col. Virts] speaks on behalf of the entire space industry. If not, please enlighten me further.

Really? I would not assume that. I assume only that he speaks only for himself, with any "we" being a use of that pronoun that very informally refers to his past-fellow astronauts, or more broadly, the citizenry of the U.S.A. Established manufacturing companies or their industry-benevolent organizations (e.g., aerospace), federal agencies (e.g., NASA), and military services, can get really upset if people claim to speak for them when such people have not been explicitly authorized to do so. It can be "career limiting" if its severity isn't deemed a firing offense.

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 03:14:52 PM

[....] if Virts is not an actor or an impostor, and reflects the cold, bare facts presently, then some further explanation is in order. Since we live in time, consisting of past, present and future, events must line up accordingly. If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place, in light of Virts’ unambiguous remarks in 2015?

[<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgXDi7mc43M[>]

How could "we" be "celebrating in 2019"? Simple: Your premise that "the technology did not exist" in 1969 is false.

If Virts' remarks are as unambiguous as you claim, we wouldn't need to worry about subtleties, like tone-of-voice. So why wouldn't you spare CathInfo readers the cuмulative time-sink of watching yet another video shovelled into a topic, and instead provide us with exact quotes--maybe even a full unedited transcript--hmmm? It's you who claimed that it sinks only 55 seconds of each reader's life--or better yet: only yours!

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 03:14:52 PM

In [the video cited by hollingsworth,] Virts, in clear, unmistakable language, states that “we” do not have space travel technology capable of launching “us” beyond earth’s lower orbit.

That should be phrased as "lower-Earth orbit"[*].

But!

Quote from: Stanley N on July 24, 2019, 04:17:00 PM

He said "right now we can only fly in earth orbit" - the US today doesn't have the operational technology to go to the moon. He did not say the US never did.

Well, great leapin' L.E.M.s! That looks for all the world like an exact quote, followed by a valid conclusion!

Quote from: Stanley N on July 24, 2019, 04:17:00 PM

A moon trip requires a human-rated heavy-lift launch system with enough delta V to get to the moon. The only US operational, human-rated heavy-lift launch system was Saturn V. They were used.

That's "used" as in "launched" or "flown".

Quote from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, but only 13 were flown.

The unflown 2 vehicles (of the 15) were either honored by being put on display, or ingloriously scrapped, after Apollos 18--20 were cancelled by some combination of the Johnson (1963--1969) and Nixon (1969--1974) Administrations. Lyndon's Great Society, plus the on-going Vietnam War (as escalated or widened by both) were expensive, doncha know?

Quote from: Stanley N on July 24, 2019, 04:17:00 PM

So were all the N1 (the Russian counterpart to the Saturn V).

Welll, yesss, "used" in a manner of speaking: The N1 never became operational, because all 4 N1 test launches failed (Feb. 1969--Nov. 1972). Just 2 weeks before Apollo 11, what was reckoned as the 2nd N1 test-launch resulted in a spectacularly powerful explosion that destroyed its launch facility. Even tho' 'twas a project of the Godless Communist Russians, advocates of space-exploration should be excused if they express some sympathy for all the setbacks, many being political or interpersonal, that were endured by the engineers & scientists in their manned lunar project. Reportedly, N1 was suspended in 1974, after Project Apollo had already concluded, and later, N1 was cancelled in 1976 [×]. It's a mystery to me why the Kremlin would've waited so long to pull the plug on a project that would earn them no better than the 1st runner-up trophy. I don't know how soon Brezhnev (1964--1982) began to advance his newfangled ambition of launching a Soviet blue-water (i.e., open-ocean) Navy, but that would require spending lots of rubles from the Soviet budget.

-------
Note *: All astronomical or creationist -centrism debates have prudently been banished by Matthew to the CathInfo sub(sub)forum <https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/>.

Note ×: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29>. It's written in an authoritative style, but it's distressingly deficient in cited sources, almost as if some N1 enthusiast(s) Godlessly plagiarized a single source, e.g., a book chapter from a book published in the West by 1 of Khruschev's children (i.e., at least 1 son and 1 daughter). Of course, no exposés of the Soviet Space Program, being among R&D programs for the Strategic Rocket Forces, would've leaked out of the Kremlin or Kazakh S.S.R. before Glasnost and "The Fall of the Soviet Union".

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #199 on:** July 28, 2019, 04:16:53 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 04:46:27 PM

Stanley, you are obviously a very desperate individual.

Are the rest of the forum members, following this thread, going to sit back, thumbs planted firmly in mouth, and let the guy get away with such a statement? This is just an unbelievable response.

Thank you for inviting other CathInfo members to weigh in with their opinions.

Count me as amazed by your insult "thumbs planted firmly in mouth", which seems counterproductive for you. It's an excellent description of a child who has not yet attained the age-of-reason nor learned the skills of readin' & writin', who is sitting blissfully in front of a television, obviously captivated by a video.

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 04:46:27 PM

Stanley, are you really insinuating that Virts spoke only of present capabilities? That he did not discount the alleged Moon landings in 1969 and [']70?

Wait! Don't forget the Moon landings by Apollo 14--17, launched in Jan. 1971--Dec. 1972.

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 24, 2019, 04:46:27 PM

Stanley, you're either deluded, or not a very honest person. You know exactly what he was saying,

Really, now? You've had the opportunity to provide exact quotes from crucial sentences spoken in the videos you've shovelled in, but have not done so. Then you've spun unquoted sentences, avoiding exact quoting, I now suspect, to enable you to ignore problematic words actually spoken, while arguing that the audio proves your claims. Those claims seem much more like axioms that you've adopted as a matter of personal faith in, um, what, exactly?

"Unbelievable"? Only Stanley N has provided anything resembling an exact quote from any 1 of the shovelled-in videos. Thus it's he who charges you, hollingsworth, with omitting the crucial word "now". You do understand, don't you, that if true, that would be a severe discredit to your reputation for honesty in CathInfo?

It's easy to see that Occam's Razor, which loosely stated, means that the simplest explanation that's consistent with the known facts or evidence is the correct explanation, are best by the critical Moon-landing postings by Stanley N.

Those postings by Stanley N have the advantage for me of being consistent with what I either know or believe to be true. I conclude that not only because of the realities of certain technologies with which I have 1st-hand experience, but also by virtue of having been alive in Central Florida, and well past the then-customary Catholic age-of-reason, when all the events happened that are argued-over in this topic and others like it. Considering all the employees of NASA and aerospace-contractors then living in Central Florida, any faked landings should've become rumored soon enough around here, especially by the multitudes of employees who could soon enough develop a grudge against NASA, because of suffering lay-offs caused by the NASA budget cuts that I hinted at above. But there were no such rumors of fakery.

So I've tentatively reached the very disappointing conclusion that you, hollingsworth, are the forum member who is "deluded, or not a very honest person." Really sad. You're not going to try to blame that on purported obligations from Traditional Catholicism, are you?

Matthew · « **Reply #200 on:** July 28, 2019, 09:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on July 22, 2019, 07:53:29 PM

There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.

But in your example, the navigational technology, explorations/techniques which allowed the leap of sailing across the Atlantic were followed up on, built upon, and improved upon. There wasn't a 50 year lull while everything went back to the pre-1492 status quo.

King Ferdinand and Isabella didn't say 50 years later they "lost all the navigational data, maps, charts, and logs" and everything that Columbus explored and accomplished, admitting they can't reach the New World today, and adding for good measure that they look forward to reaching out more than 100 miles from the coast of Spain in the near future.

That is basically what NASA has said, however!

A) they lost all the reels of flight telemetry data (how convenient!)
B) They claim to have destroyed/lost the $175 billion in technology developed during the Apollo missions (Dubya-Tee-Eff?)
C) They speak of the Van Allen belts as being an insurmountable obstacle at present.
D) In the late 2010's NASA has gone on camera stating they look forward to exploring "beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time."
E) A film reel shows the "astronauts" allegedly between the moon and earth, using camera tricks (a small hole in a screen over a window) to make the earth look tiny. They were just in Low Earth Orbit. If they truly went to the Moon, why resort to such deception?

If that doesn't make you question the "Moon Landing" story, then nothing will.

Matthew · « **Reply #201 on:** July 28, 2019, 09:28:13 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on July 22, 2019, 07:53:29 PM

There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.

Yes, but there's the Moon itself, is there not? Why hasn't it been duplicated in 50 years? Why all the funny business with the data, photos, etc.?

Matthew · « **Reply #202 on:** July 28, 2019, 09:34:11 PM »

To believe in the moon landings, you have to believe that NASA had some kind of magical battery from the 24th century that could store ridiculous amounts of energy.

The Lunar landing module computers, A/C in the spacesuits, the rover(s), a broadcasting station (to broadcast live VIDEO back to earth) all had to be powered by a few 1970-era batteries. I'm sorry, but batteries are not magic.

A single 61 pound golf cart battery in 2019 might have 215 AH or amp-hours. That's at 6V. If you had TWO of those strung together to make 12V, 215 AH that might run a 5000 watt A/C unit, or enough to keep an average RV 20 degrees cooler than the outdoor temp for about 8 hours. And we're talking some large batteries here, nothing portable -- even in 2019.
https://www.batteriesplus.com/productdetails/sligc110

The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.

Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.

I know enough about batteries. I've put together some small-scale solar power systems and have done a lot of research on different types of batteries. People are used to electronics "sipping" electricity today, due to integrated circuits and microprocessors. But back in 1970, circuits would dissipate a LOT more heat -- measured in watts -- which comes RIGHT out of the battery capacity. So even the "cheap" users like computers would be total pigs back then. Nevermind expensive operations like cooling or powering a vehicle.

Struthio · « **Reply #203 on:** July 28, 2019, 09:42:27 PM »

In my opinion, the reentry is impossible, even returning from any "space station". It's all fake.

A reentry, starting in a tin can at a high speed in orbit, would need some fuel to burn for braking purposes. No shield can withstand the temperatures in free fall.

Stanley N · « **Reply #204 on:** July 28, 2019, 11:21:14 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 28, 2019, 09:34:11 PM

The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.

Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.

Have you looked up any of the batteries or other technologies used in the Apollo landers?

Stanley N · « **Reply #205 on:** July 28, 2019, 11:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 28, 2019, 09:10:27 PM

But in your example, the navigational technology, explorations/techniques which allowed the leap of sailing across the Atlantic were followed up on, built upon, and improved upon. There wasn't a 50 year lull while everything went back to the pre-1492 status quo.

They were also a monarchy and not subject to the political whims of a democracy putting in the opposing party who then cancelled future ship construction, so that shipyards convert to some other business, with many experienced shipbuilders taking jobs in other industries.

Analogies limp except in the point of comparison.

Quote

A) they lost all the reels of flight telemetry data (how convenient!)
B) They claim to have destroyed/lost the $175 billion in technology developed during the Apollo missions (Dubya-Tee-Eff?)
C) They speak of the Van Allen belts as being an insurmountable obstacle at present.
D) In the late 2010's NASA has gone on camera stating they look forward to exploring "beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time."
E) A film reel shows the "astronauts" allegedly between the moon and earth, using camera tricks (a small hole in a screen over a window) to make the earth look tiny. They were just in Low Earth Orbit. If they truly went to the Moon, why resort to such deception?

These have been addressed. Several times. Especially that last one (E). It's utter nonsense, as far as I can tell originating from Sibrel. You can see that it's nonsense by looking at the full video before Sibrel's deceptive "editing". And you din't provide a source and quote for (D).

I( have patiently explained each of these things when they have appeared. But now we have the same people just repeating the same things, as if they have never been addressed either here or elsewhere on the internet. And while I was doing Sunday liturgy and family things, someone has apparently given me 23 downvotes in less than a day.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #206 on:** July 29, 2019, 02:04:04 AM »

Defending the moon landing is like defending evolution. It’s a fantastic lie which is supported by an entire multi-Billion $ industry. Both lies support a philosophical, satanic and political agenda to promote the idea that science can solve any problem, to instill the false idea of atheism, and to show the greatness of big government.

Stanley N · « **Reply #207 on:** July 29, 2019, 11:29:56 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2019, 02:04:04 AM

Defending the moon landing is like defending evolution. It’s a fantastic lie which is supported by an entire multi-Billion $ industry. Both lies support a philosophical, satanic and political agenda to promote the idea that science can solve any problem, to instill the false idea of atheism, and to show the greatness of big government.

Defending the hoax believers (HB) is like defending flat earth (FE). Both lies come from a philosophical, satanic and political agenda of crippling pusillanimity and self-justifying ignorance. If an elite wanted to accomplish controlled opposition, they couldn't do too much better than getting the opposition locked into HB and FE nonsense and even arguing for that nonsense on the internet. As a bonus, they can be tracked easily.

See, narratives can work the other way, since they are just constructs of the mind. What should matter is having the mind conform to external reality. But that would involve evidence.

Being detached from reality has been routine for humanities education for decades. Science and technology still has some attachment to reality, because they have to make real devices work.

ProLife · « **Reply #208 on:** July 29, 2019, 11:59:51 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 28, 2019, 09:42:27 PM

In my opinion, the reentry is impossible, even returning from any "space station". It's all fake.

A reentry, starting in a tin can at a high speed in orbit, would need some fuel to burn for braking purposes. No shield can withstand the temperatures in free fall.

I believe it's possible. Plus we've had a lot more astronauts in low earth orbit compared to the so-called Apollo moon landings. It just takes special materials in the cone, fiberglass, ceramics, etc. to protect against the intense heat. And usually re-entry vehicles come in at a much shallower angle than 90 degrees. Haven't you heard the old line from countless books, movies, and non-fiction articles? "Too shallow of an angle, and the craft will bounce off the atmosphere like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond. Too deep, and it will burn up in the atmosphere." Scientists can calculate the exact angle needed, using math and physics.

Struthio · « **Reply #209 on:** July 29, 2019, 02:11:19 PM »

Quote from: ProLife on July 29, 2019, 11:59:51 AM

I believe it's possible. Plus we've had a lot more astronauts in low earth orbit compared to the so-called Apollo moon landings. It just takes special materials in the cone, fiberglass, ceramics, etc. to protect against the intense heat. And usually re-entry vehicles come in at a much shallower angle than 90 degrees. Haven't you heard the old line from countless books, movies, and non-fiction articles? "Too shallow of an angle, and the craft will bounce off the atmosphere like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond. Too deep, and it will burn up in the atmosphere." Scientists can calculate the exact angle needed, using math and physics.

Yes, I know about that. But I think there is no angle/shield material combination which prevents the burning up in the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the heavy reentry vehicles orbiting at high speed is too much to get rid off in a short time without vaporizing.

Author Topic: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge (Read 16139 times)

hollingsworth

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

AlligatorDicax

Communication/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Stanley N

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

AlligatorDicax

Occam's Razor/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

AlligatorDicax

Deluded?/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Matthew

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Matthew

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Matthew

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Struthio

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Stanley N

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Stanley N

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Pax Vobis

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Stanley N

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

ProLife

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge

Struthio

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge